Clinical pharmacy services in the emergency department

The emergency department (ED) is a fast-paced, high-risk, and often overburdened work environment. Formal policy statements from several notable organizations, including the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), have recognized the importance of clinical pharmacists in the emergency medicine (EM) setting. EM clinical pharmacists work alongside emergency physicians and nurses at the bedside to optimize pharmacotherapy, improve patient safety, increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness of care, facilitate antibiotic stewardship, educate patients and clinicians, and contribute to scholarly efforts. This paper examines the history of EM clinical pharmacists and associated training programs, the diverse responsibilities and roles of EM clinical pharmacists, their impact on clinical and financial outcomes, and proposes a conceptual model for EM clinical pharmacist integration into ED patient care. Finally, barriers to implementing EM clinical pharmacy programs and limitations are considered.     

Pharmacist driven antibiotic redosing in the emergency department

Study objectiveDetermine whether an expanded emergency medicine (EM) pharmacist scope of practice reduces the frequency of major delays in subsequent antibiotic administration in patients boarded in the emergency department (ED).MethodsA pre-post, quasi-experimental study conducted from November 2019–March 2020 at a single-center tertiary academic medical center following the implementation of an expanded EM pharmacist scope of practice. Adult patients were included if they received an initial antibiotic dose in the ED and deemed to be high-risk. Subsequent antibiotic doses were reordered by EM pharmacists for up to 24-h after the initial order pending ED length of stay (LOS). The historical control group consisted of retrospective chart review of cases from the previous year.ResultsThe study identified that of the 181 participants enrolled, major delays in subsequent antibiotic administration occurred in 13% of the intervention group and 48% of the control group (p < 0.01). When compared to the control group, the intervention group had a significant decrease in the number of delays among antibiotics dosed at 6-h (39% vs 13%) and 8-h (60% vs 8%) intervals. For antibiotics dosed at 12-h intervals, no statistically significant difference was observed between the control and intervention groups respectively (19% vs 5%). A statistically significant lower incidence of in-hospital mortality was observed in the intervention group (3% vs 11%, p = 0.02). In the intervention group, 97% of patients received subsequent antibiotic doses while boarded in the ED, compared to 65% in the control group (<0.01).ConclusionExpanding EM pharmacist scope of practice was associated with a significant reduction in the frequency of major delays in subsequent antibiotic administration as well as a decreased incidence of hospital mortality.     

Survival benefit of helicopter emergency medical services compared to ground emergency medical services in traumatized patients

Introduction

Physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) are a well-established component of prehospital trauma care in Germany. Reduced rescue times and increased catchment area represent presumable specific advantages of HEMS. In contrast, the availability of HEMS is connected to a high financial burden and depends on the weather, day time and controlled visual flight rules. To date, clear evidence regarding the beneficial effects of HEMS in terms of improved clinical outcome has remained elusive.

Methods

Traumatized patients (Injury Severity Score; ISS ≥9) primarily treated by HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS) between 2007 and 2009 were analyzed using the TraumaRegister DGU^® of the German Society for Trauma Surgery. Only patients treated in German level I and II trauma centers with complete data referring to the transportation mode were included. Complications during hospital treatment included sepsis and organ failure according to the criteria of the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine (ACCP/SCCM) consensus conference committee and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.

Results

A total of 13,220 patients with traumatic injuries were included in the present study. Of these, 62.3% (n = 8,231) were transported by GEMS and 37.7% (n = 4,989) by HEMS. Patients treated by HEMS were more seriously injured compared to GEMS (ISS 26.0 vs. 23.7, P < 0.001) with more severe chest and abdominal injuries. The extent of medical treatment on-scene, which involved intubation, chest and treatment with vasopressors, was more extensive in HEMS (P < 0.001) resulting in prolonged on-scene time (39.5 vs. 28.9 minutes, P < 0.001). During their clinical course, HEMS patients more frequently developed multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) (HEMS: 33.4% vs. GEMS: 25.0%; P < 0.001) and sepsis (HEMS: 8.9% vs. GEMS: 6.6%, P < 0.001) resulting in an increased length of ICU treatment and in-hospital time (P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that after adjustment by 11 other variables the odds ratio for mortality in HEMS was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.636 to 862).Afterwards, a subgroup analysis was performed on patients transported to level I trauma centers during daytime with the intent of investigating a possible correlation between the level of the treating trauma center and posttraumatic outcome. According to this analysis, the Standardized Mortality Ratio, SMR, was significantly decreased following the Trauma Score and the Injury Severity Score (TRISS) method (HEMS: 0.647 vs. GEMS: 0.815; P = 0.002) as well as the Revised Injury Severity Classification (RISC) score (HEMS: 0.772 vs. GEMS: 0.864; P = 0.045) in the HEMS group.

Conclusions

Although HEMS patients were more seriously injured and had a significantly higher incidence of MODS and sepsis, these patients demonstrated a survival benefit compared to GEMS.     

Severe sepsis and septic shock in patients transported by prehospital services versus walk in patients to the emergency department

BackgroundSepsis is a leading cause of death in the hospital for which aggressive treatment is recommended to improve patient outcomes. It is possible that sepsis patients brought in by emergency medical services (EMS) have a unique advantage in the emergency department (ED) which could improve sepsis bundle compliance.ObjectiveTo evaluate patient care processes and outcome differences between severe sepsis and septic shock patients in the emergency department who were brought in by EMS compared to non-EMS patients.MethodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of all severe sepsis and septic shock patients who declared in the ED during January 2012 thru December 2014. We compared differences in patient characteristics, patient care processes, sepsis bundle compliance metrics, and outcomes between both groups.ResultsOf the 1066 patients included in the study, 387 (36.6%) were brought in by EMS and 679 (63.7%) patients arrived via non-EMS transport. In the multivariate regression model, time of triage to sepsis declaration (coeff = −0.406; 95% CI = −0.809, −0.003; p = 0.048) and time of triage to physician (coeff = −0.543; 95% CI = −0.864, −0.221; p = 0.001) was significantly shorter for EMS patients. We found no statistical difference in adjusted individual sepsis compliance metrics, overall bundle compliance, or mortality between both groups.ConclusionEMS transported patients have quicker sepsis declaration times and are seen sooner by ED providers. However, we found no statistical difference in bundle compliance or patient outcomes between walk in patients and EMS transported patients.     

Structure and function of the emergency department: matching emergency department choices to the emergency department mission

Emergency caregivers experience considerable new challenges to the provision of competent, compassionate care. The good news is there are ample new approaches and new technologies to meet those new challenges.ED leaders who understand the ED mission and the resources available today and who engage vigorously in the change process will turn that mission into immensely beneficial action.     

Review article: Sepsis in the emergency department – Part 3: Treatment

Although comprehensive guidelines for treatment of sepsis exist, current research continues to refine and revise several aspects of management. Imperatives for rapid administration of broad‐spectrum antibiotics for all patients with sepsis may not be supported by contemporary data. Many patients may be better served by a more judicious approach allowing consideration of investigation results and evidence‐based guidelines. Conventional fluid therapy has been challenged with early evidence supporting balanced, restricted fluid and early vasopressor use. Albumin, vasopressin and hydrocortisone have each been shown to support blood pressure and reduce catecholamine requirements but without effect on mortality, and as such should be considered for ED patients with septic shock on a case‐by‐case basis. Measurement of quality care in sepsis should incorporate quality of blood cultures and guideline‐appropriateness of antibiotics, as well as timeliness of therapy. Local audit is an essential and effective means to improve practice. Multicentre consolidation of data through agreed minimum sepsis data sets would provide baseline quality data, required for the design and evaluation of interventions.     

Developing research criteria to define medical necessity in emergency medical services

“The Neely Conference: Developing Research Criteria to Define Medical Necessity in EMS” convened emergency medical services (EMS) physicians, researchers, administrators, providers, and federal agency representatives to begin the development of a set of uniform triage criteria and outcome measures that could be used to study and evaluate medical necessity among EMS patients. These standardized criteria might be used in research studies examining EMS dispatch and response (e.g., dispatch triage protocols, alternative response configurations), and EMS treatment and transport (e.g., field triage protocols, alternative care destinations). The conference process included review and analysis of the literature, expert judgment, and consensus building. There was general agreement on the following: 1. Any dispatch triage or field triage system that is developed must be designed to offer patients alternatives to EMS, not to refuse care to patients. 2. It is theoretically possible to develop a set of clinical criteria for need. Some groups of patients will clearly need a traditional EMS response and other groups will not, but this has yet to be defined. 3. In addition to clinical criteria, certain social and other nonclinical criteria such as pain or potential abuse may be used to justify a response. 4. Communication barriers, patient age, special needs, and other conditions complicate patient assessment but should not exclude patients from consideration for alternate triage or transport. 5. These research questions are important, and standard sets of outcome measures are needed so that different studies and innovative programs can be compared.     

Antimuscarinic syndrome after propofol administration in the emergency department

Antimuscarinic syndrome (AS), a rare but serious adverse event associated with propofol should be included in the differential diagnosis of patients who develop agitation after its administration. We report a case of antimuscarinic syndrome that developed in an emergency department patient immediately after receiving propofol for the reduction of an elbow dislocation. The patient had received therapeutic doses of meperidine and promethazie several hours before the administration of propofol, and had an estimated serum ethanol level of 64 mg/dL about 1 h before sedation. The patient was successfully treated with physostigmine. Administration of propofol in conjunction with other substances known to have antimuscarinic effects may increase the risk of developing AS.     

Modernising medical careers: educational implications for the emergency department

Modernising Medical Careers (MMC) is a project designed to reconfigure postgraduate medical education throughout the United Kingdom. It is proposed that all UK medical school graduates undertake a 2 year foundation programme to build basic professional skills to which specialist training can be added. Implicit in these proposals is that career choices need to be made at a relatively early phase of training. In the case of emergency medicine, a common stem of training in emergency and critical care is being proposed which would be suitable early training for potential specialists in emergency medicine, anaesthesia, intensive care, and acute medicine. In both foundation training and higher specialist training, the trainee should have the skills of a self directing, reflective learner and the trainer the skills required to produce a good learning environment with a supportive and open atmosphere and learning structured to maximise the opportunities for experiential learning in the workplace.